Trade 18-135 for 16-50?

**pres589** · 10-11-2017, 07:19 PM

Those are nice shots, but, the IQ was better than a 50mm prime? I'm incredulous...

Tbone51 · 10-11-2017, 07:28 PM

I was surprised too. Maybe I had a bad copy of the FA 50. In any case, it hasn’t been missed.

tibbitts · 10-11-2017, 08:19 PM

I'd consider the 16-85 for most purposes more than the 16-50 or 18-135, although it too has its issues.

**pres589** · 10-12-2017, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Tbone51

I was surprised too. Maybe I had a bad copy of the FA 50. In any case, it hasn’t been missed.

You know, I can think of issues that my M50 1.4 has, like night shots with street lights in the frame, where I end up with a bunch of "halos" (not sure what the right term is) around the sources of light. My 18-135 doesn't do this nearly as much and I imagine the 16-50 is probably pretty good about this as well. This is why I'm considering selling my M50 1.4 and keeping a DA50 1.8 in its place; the newer lens is just a bit nicer all around with more predictable results.

**UncleVanya** · 10-12-2017, 09:06 AM

My problem with the DA* 16-50 may have more to do with my style of photography where the DA 15 suits me more and the 20-40 suits me more. The 16-50 seems very flare prone but you @Tbone51 seem to have tamed it.

**mikesbike** · 10-12-2017, 10:50 AM

I have had the DA 18-135mm for some years now, and would not part with it. It fills the bill for so many situations. Just as you said, between 18-80 or so the quality is really good. I'd say from 18-70mm, where it is essentially f/3.5-4.5 capable or around one stop off an f/2.8 lens. The DA 16-85mm comes in as slightly better in test results, in some respects, than the DA* 16-50mm, and is only about one stop slower than f/2.8 out to 50mm, while the DA* FL is a bit short of 50mm, closer to 45mm.

The DA 18-135mm definitely has one of Pentax's best AF performance- fast, quiet, and sure. It is compact, easy to carry, but very well-made. The differences in IQ between these three fine lenses is quite minute in practical terms, as to what you'll actually see. Very hard to see a difference, especially from 18-70mm.

There are times, that means circumstances, where I will definitely need my fine Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 lens- like shooting some fast-action roller hockey under indoor lighting, were I'll need a very high shutter speed. This lens is also a favorite when shooting low-light scenes, so I don't have to boost the ISO as much, since IQ is fine even wide open. But it cannot take the place of my DA 18-135mm, which in other situations serves other needs beyond the capability of the f/2.8 lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Trade in Tamron 24-135 for Pentax 18-135 ?	dreamsof"LX"	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-08-2017 09:57 AM
For Sale - Sold: K-5, 16-50,50-135,65-250, Sigma 17-50, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8, Flashes	virarfast	Sold Items	8	04-04-2013 02:30 PM
Move from 18-135 to 16-50 + 50-135 DA* Lenses	brosen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-08-2011 05:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: Trade my 16-45, 55-300, 18-55wr for 18-135 (US/CAN)	jimr-pdx	Sold Items	6	02-05-2011 06:13 PM

10-11-2017, 07:19 PM	#16
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	Those are nice shots, but, the IQ was better than a 50mm prime? I'm incredulous...

10-11-2017, 07:28 PM	#17
Tbone51 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 120	I was surprised too. Maybe I had a bad copy of the FA 50. In any case, it hasn’t been missed.

10-11-2017, 08:19 PM	#18
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I'd consider the 16-85 for most purposes more than the 16-50 or 18-135, although it too has its issues.

10-12-2017, 04:45 AM	#19
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	Originally posted by Tbone51 I was surprised too. Maybe I had a bad copy of the FA 50. In any case, it hasn’t been missed. You know, I can think of issues that my M50 1.4 has, like night shots with street lights in the frame, where I end up with a bunch of "halos" (not sure what the right term is) around the sources of light. My 18-135 doesn't do this nearly as much and I imagine the 16-50 is probably pretty good about this as well. This is why I'm considering selling my M50 1.4 and keeping a DA50 1.8 in its place; the newer lens is just a bit nicer all around with more predictable results.

10-12-2017, 09:06 AM	#20
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	My problem with the DA* 16-50 may have more to do with my style of photography where the DA 15 suits me more and the 20-40 suits me more. The 16-50 seems very flare prone but you @Tbone51 seem to have tamed it.

10-12-2017, 10:50 AM	#21
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,558	I have had the DA 18-135mm for some years now, and would not part with it. It fills the bill for so many situations. Just as you said, between 18-80 or so the quality is really good. I'd say from 18-70mm, where it is essentially f/3.5-4.5 capable or around one stop off an f/2.8 lens. The DA 16-85mm comes in as slightly better in test results, in some respects, than the DA* 16-50mm, and is only about one stop slower than f/2.8 out to 50mm, while the DA* FL is a bit short of 50mm, closer to 45mm. The DA 18-135mm definitely has one of Pentax's best AF performance- fast, quiet, and sure. It is compact, easy to carry, but very well-made. The differences in IQ between these three fine lenses is quite minute in practical terms, as to what you'll actually see. Very hard to see a difference, especially from 18-70mm. There are times, that means circumstances, where I will definitely need my fine Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 lens- like shooting some fast-action roller hockey under indoor lighting, were I'll need a very high shutter speed. This lens is also a favorite when shooting low-light scenes, so I don't have to boost the ISO as much, since IQ is fine even wide open. But it cannot take the place of my DA 18-135mm, which in other situations serves other needs beyond the capability of the f/2.8 lens.